M/s. TIANISH Laboratories Pvt Limited having its Regd. Off # v. State Load Dispatch Centre

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus (a) Declaring that the condition imposed by the 2nd Respondent in its e-mail daled 0710612022 for grant of open access is arbitrary, perverse, irrational, arbitrary, unauthorized and illegal, and (b)Declaring the re.iection of the Petitioners applications for standing clearance for lnter-State Open Access for the months of July and August 2022 asarbitrary, contrary to the CERC OA Regulation, 2008 and illegal, and to set aside the same, and (c) I Directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioners applications and issue No Objection / Standing Clearance for lnter State Open Access strictly in terms of the CERC OA Regulation, 2008 without reference to the condition in the 2nd Respondents e-mail dated 0710612022 or any other conditions not authorized by the Central Commission Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DEEPAK CHOWDARY REP SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY (sc FoR TELANGANA TRANSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER ,/' HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.325O3 OF 2022 ORDER: Heard Sri Deepak Chowdary, learned counsel representing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2, The petitioner approached the Court seeking I prayer as under: " -....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus- (a) Declaring that the condition imposed by the 2nd Respondent in its email dated 07.06.2022 for grant of open access is arbitrary, perverse. irrational, arbitrary, unauthorized and illegal and; (b) Declaring the rejection of the Petitioner's applications For standing clearance for Inter-State Open Access for the months of July and August, 2022 as arbitrary, contrary to the CERC OA Regulation, 2008 and illegal and to set aside the same a nd; (c) Directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's applications and issue No Objection / Standing Clearance for Inter State Open Access strictly in terms oF the CERC OA Regulation 2008 without reference to the condition in the znd I r' i J 2 email dated 07.06.2022 or any not authorized by the Central Respondent's other conditions Commission (d) and or pass.....

3. This Court vide its order dated 3O.O8.2O22 in I.A.No.O1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 325O3 of 2022 Dassed interim order in favour of the petationer observinq as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents submits that the Solar Power Generating Company-M/s.Dubbak Solal Projects Private Limited had been generating B MW solar power during the peak periods and injecting power into transmission lines, and the 2nd respondent is being made Iiable to pay unscheduled Inter-change (UI) charges as per clause 20 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Open Access in inter-State Transmission ) Regulations, 2008 (for short 'the Regulations'), which is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The matters requires detailed consideration. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that objection taken by the 2nd respondent vide e-mail J (3)(a)

07.06.2022 and (b) of is contrary to clause B the regulations. Hence, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider applications- of the petitioner for No Objection/Standing Clearance for Inter-State Open Access without reference to the impugned condition prescribed by the 2nd respondent in e-mail dated 07.06.2022. However, this order shall be subject to further orders in I.A.No.01 of 2O22 and in the Writ Petition. I \

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in pursuance to the Interim Orders of this Court dated 30.Oa.2O22 passed in present W.P.No.325O3 of 2022 (reterred to and extracted above), the respondents had considered the application of the petitioner for No Objection/Standing Clearance for Inter-State Open Access without reference to the impugned condition prescribed by the 2nd respondent in e-mail dated O7.O6.2O22 and hence, the cause of action in the present Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication any more. , I I 4

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6, Bringing the said submissions of both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on record, the writ petition is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / @ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// I '.: Advocate IOPUGI C FOR TELANGANA TRANSCO) t

1. One CC to SRI 2. One CC to SRl. loPUCl I Two CD CoPies .:: .a: BM ti: i TKS ' iI' "ftre i'll, '.' r i i#€" -: I i +Li:, F l*r-i s. I { ii*.; --- $1 EllEl'r'-- t {.'j !i . 1! , ) ', To, \ I I I I I I l I HIGH COURT DATED:0810112025 ORDER WP.No.32503 of 2022 ,\ IIE SIA o O 2I Jill 2026 I * PA.I' CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS y( \q\r>\'{